State v. Montgomery
2020 Ohio 513
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Dayton police Officer Thadeu Holloway approached a group at Limestone Court Apartments around 10:00 p.m. about loud music and asked residents to turn it down.
- Holloway then asked each person for name, birthdate, and Social Security number; Montgomery orally provided the information.
- A records check revealed Montgomery was on a trespass list for the property; officers arrested him for criminal trespass.
- Montgomery testified he felt detained because officers had hands on holsters/tasers, told the group to show ID, and prevented him from entering the apartment; Holloway testified the encounter was cordial, he did not display weapons, and no one was told they could not leave.
- The municipal court denied Montgomery’s suppression motion, Montgomery pled no-contest to criminal trespass (misdemeanor), was convicted, and appealed raising three arguments about consent, excluded evidence of a policing pattern, and the effect of citizen fear on consensual-encounter analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Montgomery) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montgomery’s disclosure of ID info was voluntary or the product of a seizure | Officer’s approach and request for ID were a consensual encounter; no show of force or restraint occurred | Officer’s proximity, hands on holster/taser, and verbal commands made a reasonable person feel detained and compelled to comply | Court held encounter was objectively consensual; trial court credited officer’s testimony and overruled suppression motion |
| Admissibility of testimony about a pattern of police stops at apartment complexes | Prior pattern is irrelevant to whether this particular encounter was a seizure; focus is on officer’s conduct in this incident | Prior similar stops show a pattern that trains residents to believe encounters are non-consensual and bears on Montgomery’s state of mind and voluntariness | Court excluded pattern testimony as irrelevant: prior practices don’t change what Holloway did here; no abuse of discretion in exclusion |
| Whether the standard for consensual encounters must account for citizens’ fear of police or risk in walking away | Existing objective test focusing on officer conduct governs; subjective fear without objective support is insufficient | Court should consider contemporary culture and citizen fear; mere officer presence can imply detention and make walking away dangerous | Court rejected expanding the standard; maintained objective ‘‘show of authority’’ test and declined to treat police presence alone as detention |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (objective test for consensual encounters; approaching in public and asking questions may be consensual)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (show-of-authority test is objective — whether officer’s words/actions would convey restraint to a reasonable person)
- State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521 (trial court’s role as factfinder on suppression; appellate deference to credibility findings)
- State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (appellate standard for accepting trial-court factual findings on suppression)
- State v. Taylor, 106 Ohio App.3d 741 (consensual encounters are not seizures; Fourth Amendment not implicated)
- State v. Cosby, 177 Ohio App.3d 670 (factors indicating non-consensual encounter include weapon display, physical touching, tone, blocking egress)
- State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)